Tag: nuclear weapons

Categories
Quick Analysis

Nuclear War Threat Returns

Cold War fears of nuclear war have returned, as Russia has established the world’s most powerful nuclear force, China has become a major atomic power, North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, and Iran will soon follow. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government has obtained a copy of the U.S. Department of Defense’s just-released analysis of the threat, which we present today.

THREAT

The United States and our allies face an increasingly threatening and complex strategic environment. Russia and China are increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and have been increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces. Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran are destabilizing regions through their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

RUSSIA

The United States and our allies face an increasingly threatening and complex strategic environment. Russia and China are increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and have been increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces. Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran are destabilizing regions through their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

Russia is modernizing an active stockpile of up to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons employable by ships, planes, and ground forces.

CHINA

Over the next ten years, China is expected to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile while implementing the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history. China is developing, testing, and fielding new generations of land-based ballistic missiles, increasing the range of its submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and pursuing a new bomber. Further, it is expending significant resources on advanced nuclear-capable systems and hypersonic vehicles.

NORTH KOREA

North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. It has conducted increasingly sophisticated nuclear and ICBM flight tests, which pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and our allies.

IRAN

Iran has developed and fielded a substantial arsenal of ballistic missiles that can strike targets throughout the region. These ballistic missiles are a key component of Iran’s efforts to dominate its region of the world and intimidate U.S. allies and partners. Additionally, Iran’s current attempts to launch a space vehicle could provide valuable information that would aid its effort to develop an ICBM capability.

POLICY

While the United States has taken concrete steps to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, others have increased the number of nuclear weapons they field and have increased the role of nuclear weapons in their security strategies. Until nuclear weapons can prudently be eliminated from the world, the United States must maintain a credible nuclear force by modernizing where necessary to ensure the security of the United States, our allies, and our partners. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms that the United States will pursue a safe, secure, survivable, and effective nuclear deterrent while simultaneously pursuing nuclear nonproliferation and arms control efforts. The highest U.S. nuclear policy and strategy priority is to deter potential adversaries from nuclear attack of any scale. The United States would only consider employing nuclear weapons in the most extreme circumstances to defend our vital interests and those of our allies and partners.

STRATEGY

The three legs of the U.S. nuclear Triad are complementary, with each component offering unique strengths. Together, the Triad ensures the United States can effectively withstand and respond to any attack.

With 400 ICBMs, no adversary can disarm the U.S. nuclear deterrent without attacking hundreds of targets simultaneously. 

A portion of the SSBN fleet and its 240 SLBMs is always on patrol, making them very difficult to find and track.

The 60 nuclear-capable bombers are a clear and visible signal of U.S. intent and resolve during a crisis, and provide the President a variety of options.

Not only that all the reputed medicine company of online levitra that we are talking about. Male Hormone buy generic levitra TherapyLow Testosterone is another reason for ED. How Idea Of Kamagra Jelly Originated? Kamagra Jelly was initially introduced order viagra by the scientists of Pfizer laboratories UK as a drug for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Highly powerful kamagra tablets are prepared with sildenafil discount price viagra citrate active ingredient.

 U.S. nuclear weapons deter nuclear and strategic non-nuclear aggression, including chemical, biological, and large-scale conventional attacks. Our nuclear posture demonstrates to any adversary that nuclear strikes will result in far greater costs than any benefits the adversary could achieve. U.S. nuclear weapons provide assurance to allies and partners that the United States is committed to their security. Extended deterrence allows allies and partners to abstain from pursuing their own nuclear weapons, thereby contributing to our nonproliferation goals. Should deterrence fail, nuclear operations would adhere to the law of armed conflict as the United States will strive to end any conflict and restore deterrence at the lowest level of damage possible. The United States will continue efforts to create a more cooperative and benign security environment, but must also hedge against prospective and unanticipated risks.

POSTURE

Most U.S. nuclear weapons delivery systems have been extended far beyond their original service lives and cannot be sustained beyond the 2025 to 2035 timeframe. Although still reliable and credible, our current delivery systems, weapons, command and control systems, and infrastructure are rapidly aging into obsolescence. 

The FY 2021 Budget Request funds all critical DoD nuclear modernization, sustainment, and operational requirements, helping to ensure modern replacements will be available before the nation’s Cold War legacy systems reach the end of their extended service lives. 

Delays in funding for replacement systems will adversely impact military operations and undermine the deterrence mission.

PROGRAMS

COLUMBIA-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines will replace the nearly 40-year-old OHIO-Class submarines. 

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program will replace the nearly 60-year-old Minuteman III ICBM.

 B-21 Bomber will supplement the B-52 bomber and will have both conventional and nuclear roles. 

Long-Range Standoff Missile will replace the nearly 40-year-old Air-Launched Cruise Missile with a missile capable of penetrating defended airspace. 

Trident II (D5) Life Extension 2 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Life Extension program extends the D5’s service life for deployment on both OHIO- and COLUMBIAClass submarines.

 Sea-Launched Cruise Missile will reintroduce a flexible, sea-based, non-strategic nuclear capability to improve U.S. capabilities for deterring limited nuclear use and assuring our allies that we will meet our extended deterrence commitments. 

F-35 Dual-Capable Aircraft will replace F-15E DCA to support our allies through extended deterrence.

COST

The nation’s nuclear modernization program is affordable. The United States seeks only what it needs to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. 

DoD’s FY 2021 request for nuclear forces is roughly 4.1% of the total DoD budget, and the request to modernize these nuclear forces is about 1.7% of the total DoD budget request.

 The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review projects that the total cost to modernize, sustain, and operate U.S. nuclear forces over the next 20 years will account for about 6.4% of the Defense budget at its highest level of funding in 2029, returning to about 3% for sustainment and operations upon completion of modernization. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) FY 2021 budget request for Weapons Activities is approximately $15.6B for nuclear modernization, sustainment, and operations. NNSA is responsible for the nation’s nuclear warheads and supporting infrastructure.

Photo: B-21 bomber (U.S. Defense Department)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2019 to 2028

What will it cost to deter a nuclear attack against the United States? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required by law to project the 10-year costs of nuclear forces every two years. This report contains CBO’s projections for the period from 2019 to 2028. The CBO summary of the report is provided below:

  • If carried out, the plans for nuclear forces delineated in the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) fiscal year 2019 budget requests would cost a total of $494 billion over the 2019–2028 period, for an average of just under $50 billion a year, CBO estimates.
  • The current 10-year total is 23 percent higher than CBO’s 2017 estimate of the 10-year costs of nuclear forces, $400 billion over the 2017–2026 period.
  • About $51 billion (or 55 percent) of the $94 billion increase in that total arises because the 10-year period covered by the current estimate begins and ends two years later than the period covered by the 2017 estimate. Thus, the period now includes two later (and more expensive) years of development in nuclear modernization programs. Also, costs in those two later years reflect 10 years of economywide inflation relative to the two years that drop out of the previous 10-year projection; that factor (in the absence of any changes to programs) accounts for about one-fourth of the $51 billion increase.
  • About $37 billion (or 39 percent) of the $94 billion increase is projected to occur from 2019 to 2026—the eight years included in both this estimate and the 2017 estimate. That increase stems mainly from new modernization programs and weapons and more concrete plans for nuclear command-and-control systems.
The Common peroneal nerve motor vital point. cialis order levitra The same is the case with online buying and selling of anti ED medicines. side effects for cialis Also the lifestyle here is very erratic and unhealthy due to over levitra online http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MissingPiece_Web5081.pdf consumption of fatty and junk foods, in addition to the sporadic sleeping hours. Different variables that generic cialis can likewise accelerate erectile brokenness are the two issues that trouble them.

Background

Nuclear weapons have been an important component of U.S. national security since they were developed during World War II. During the Cold War, nuclear forces were central to U.S. defense policy, and a large arsenal was built. Since that time, nuclear forces have figured less prominently in defense policy than conventional forces have, and the United States has not built any new nuclear weapons or delivery systems for many years.

The nation’s current nuclear forces are reaching the end of their service life. Those forces consist of submarines that launch ballistic missiles (SSBNs), land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range bomber aircraft, shorter-range tactical aircraft carrying bombs, and the nuclear warheads that those delivery systems carry. Over the next two decades, essentially all of those components of nuclear forces will have to be refurbished or replaced with new systems if the United States is to continue fielding those capabilities.

In February 2018, the Department of Defense released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a report that laid out the current Administration’s plans for nuclear strategy and force structure. To a large degree, the report represents a continuation of the nuclear posture of the previous Administration, including continuing all major modernization programs. However, the report also proposes the development of several new nuclear capabilities, which have been the subject of some debate. Over the coming years, the Congress will need to make decisions about what nuclear forces the United States should field in the future and thus about the extent to which the nation will pursue the Administration’s nuclear modernization plans.

The $432 billion would fund the following items:

• Strategic nuclear delivery systems and weapons ($234 billion). This category consists of DoD’s funding for strategic nuclear delivery systems (the three types of systems that can deliver long-range nuclear weapons—SSBNs, ICBMs, and long-range bombers), DOE’s funding for activities related to the warheads used by those systems, and DOE’s funding for the nuclear reactors that power SSBNs.

 • Tactical nuclear delivery systems and weapons ($15 billion). This category consists of DoD’s funding for tactical aircraft that can deliver nuclear weapons over shorter ranges; DOE’s funding for activities related to the warheads that those aircraft carry; funding for a new submarine-launched nuclear cruise missile (SLCM), as called for in the 2018 NPR; and funding for a warhead for that missile to carry.

• DOE’s nuclear weapons laboratories and their supporting activities ($106 billion). This category consists of funding for activities at nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities that are not attributable directly to a specific type of warhead but that are related to maintaining current and future stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

• DoD’s command, control, communications, and early-warning systems ($77 billion). These systems allow operators to communicate with nuclear forces, issue commands that control their use, detect incoming attacks, and rule out false alarms. Projected annual budgets for all of those programs together rise steadily from $33.6 billion to $53.5 billion over the next decade, CBO estimates, increasing by roughly 60 percent between 2019 and 2028.

Photo of the Nuclear Triad: CBO

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 4

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this final installment of our four-part series.

Myth: The U.S. armed forces are capable of handling any combination of threats that occur.  In 2012, the Obama Administration abandoned the long-held policy of having a U.S. military equipped to fight a two-front war.  Inexplicably, this was done at the same time that it was becoming increasingly evident that the alliance of China and Russia, as well as the cooperation in missile and nuclear technology between Iran and North Korea, was becoming increasingly evident.  Other than as an excuse to transfer defense dollars to more politically popular domestic

programs, there has never been an adequate explanation of the reasoning behind this controversial decision. This has become a larger issue as the threats from North Korea become more dangerous and frequent.  It would be naïve to believe that if it were necessary to deploy additional American forces, for example, on the Korean peninsula, that Iran would not take advantage of U.S. weakness in the Middle East, or that Russia would not expand its aggression against Ukraine.

A Heritage study found “that the U.S. needs a military that is large enough and has a sufficient range of capabilities to cover multiple major military contingencies in overlapping time frames… Such a capability is the sine qua non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our overall national security strategy.” However, as reported by the New York Times  and Atlantic monthly  “The U.S. military of the future will no longer be able to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time.”

If you wish to solve your impotence without taking medications, cialis generic cheapest garlic is one of the best natural cures for impotence that have been applied for years to treat this condition. Acai Capsules, preferably Check Prices viagra pfizer suisse freeze dried, is the best form of Acai. Fortunately, the sexual disorder can be treated using erectile dysfunction medication can cause other problems which will be cialis soft canada harmful to you. This article takes a look at the canadian viagra sales benefits that you can enjoy with healthier erections. Myth: The Pentagon budget is larger than the next several nations combined. This, the most frequently cited excuse used by opponents of an adequate defense budget, is truly disingenuous because it ignores different governing systems, accounting methods, and transparency issues. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea certainly don’t have to worry about providing profits to private sector defense contractors in the same way Washington does, so their military spending goes a lot further. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang don’t have to deal with a free and aggressive press that will probe government budgets. What those governments say they are spending on armaments and what they actually do spend may be, and almost certainly are, wildly different.  In China’s case, a great deal of military funding comes not from the general government budget, but from the profits from companies that Beijing’s military has major control over. There is another aspect to this as well:  Much of the research and development funded by U.S. taxpayers has been stolen by espionage by America’s enemies, particularly China, so those billions spent on new weapons systems have been transferred to the nation’s enemies essentially for free. Add to all the above the fact that benefits and salaries paid to American service members are considerably more costly than their foreign counterparts.

A landmark study by the American Enterprise Institute in 2014  noted: “The defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States. Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve.

The U.S. National Intelligence Council , “…Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of global power, based upon GDP, population size, military spending, and technological investment…” Beyond major powers such as China and India, non-nation state actors such as terrorist groups will have significant access to extraordinary means of destruction and disruption. “A wider spectrum of instruments of war—especially precision-strike capabilities, cyber instruments, and bioterror weapony—will become accessible. Individuals and small groups will have the capability to perpetrate large-scale violence and disruption—a capability formerly the monopoly of states.”

The debate about what constitutes an adequate defense budget must be based on facts as they are, not on what we would like them to be.  So far, that has not been the case.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this third installment of our four-part series.

Myth: the NATO alliance provides an additional bulwark against the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.  This is only partially correct.  Most of the NATO nations have underfunded their military forces for decades, and they aren’t making up for lost time in anyway approaching the necessary speed. There is some good news from Europe, however.  Eastern European nations, no longer occupied by Moscow, have built up their militaries, and are, by far, the most realistic about Russia’s aggressive intentions.

Myth: America is too large to be subjected to an attack.  It is now undeniably evident that almost the entire span of continental U.S. could be crippled by an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack from a single nuclear weapon detonated at a specific altitude.  An EMP attack would breakdown America’s electrical grid, disable almost all transportation facilities (including cars, trucks, trains and planes) and medical centers.  The inability to deliver food, water, energy and essential services, it is estimated, would result in the deaths of up to 80% of the American population within less than a year.

In a 2015 letter to the Obama Administration, the EMP Task Force warned:

“The consequent failure of critical infrastructure that sustain our lives is a major national security threat and would be catastrophic to our people and our nation.

Not just programs, viagra soft tablets try that there are hardware devices like keyloggers that are plugged in the back of a computer in order to steal the confidential information. According to the statistics collected by Minnesota Men’s Health Central (MMHC), 10% of the male population, which means that more cialis sale than 30 million in the U.S. alone. Men http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/04/04/overqualified/ sildenafil overnight may look into other methods. Now ED patients cheap super viagra can take a sigh of relief and avail medicine. “The National Intelligence Council, which speaks for the entire U.S. Intelligence Community, published in its 2012 unclassified Global Trends 2030 report that an EMP is one of only eight Black Swan events that could change the course of global civilization by or before 2030. No official study denies the view that an EMP is a potentially catastrophic societal threat that needs to be addressed urgently. America is not prepared to be without water, electricity, telephones, computer networks, heating, air conditioning, transportation (cars, subways, buses, airplanes), and banking.

“All the benefits of our just-in-time ecomony would come to a deadly halt, including the production of petroleum products, clothing, groceries and medicine. Think about cities without electricity to pump water to their residents… Russia and China have substantially hardened their electric grids. Other nations are beginning to harden theirs. But the United States has done little or nothing to counter this threat…

“A coronal mass ejection from the Sun can generate a natural EMP with catastrophic consequences. A geomagnetic super-storm in 1859 called the Carrington Event caused worldwide damage and fires in telegraph stations and other primitive electronics, which at the time were not necessary for societal survival. In contrast, today a Carrington-class geomagnetic super-storm-expected every century or so-could collapse electric grids and destroy critical infrastructure everywhere on Earth. We know it will happen; we just don’t know when, but we know humanity can’t risk being unprepared. In July 2012, we missed a repeat by only a few days when a major solar emission passed through the Earth’s orbit just after planet Earth passed. NASA recently warned that the likelihood of such a geomagnetic super-storm is 12 percent per decade; so it is virtually certain that a natural EMP catastrophe shall occur within our lifetime or that of our children.

“As we have known for over a half-century from actual test date, even more damaging EMP effects would be produced by any nuclear weapon exploded a hundred miles or so above the United States, possibly disabling everything that depends on electronics… Russia and China have already developed nuclear EMP weapons and many believe others possess EMP weapons including North Korea and soon Iran-and likely their terrorist surrogates. For example, they could launch nuclear-armed short or medium range missiles from near our coasts, possibly hiding the actual sponsor from retaliation. North Korea and Iran have tested their missiles in ways that can execute EMP attacks from ships or from satellites that approach the U.S. from the couth where our ballistic missile warning systems are minimal…”

The Report concludes Monday.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this second installment of our four-part series.

Myth: The Cold War is over.  The Soviet Union collapsed, but Vladimir Putin’s Russia is now back in full cold-war mode, with a massive military buildup, resumed nuclear patrols along America’s coast, and threatening actions against U.S. forces and allies across the world. Speaking in Kiev, U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis, reports PJ Media,  noted that “despite Russia’s denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe.”

This revived Cold War, or “Cold War 2” as some have termed it, has America at a distinct disadvantage. China and Russia were, in the past, antagonists.  Now they are solidly allied. Those believing the world is at peace amongst the major powers simply haven’t been paying attention. Russia’s vastly modernized armed forces, its invasion of Crimea, its aggressive policies towards Eastern Europe, its violation of the intermediate nuclear arms agreement, its dramatic armed buildup in the Arctic and its growing presence in Latin America, combined with China’s expansion into the South China Sea and its threatening posture towards its neighbors makes it clear that the planet has become more dangerous than ever.

Myth: If America needed to fight a major war, it could timely build a larger military like it did in World War 2.  Unfortunately, the U.S. no longer has the industrial base to quickly build the ships, planes and tanks it would need to compete with Russia and China.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing outlines the challenge:

“U.S. national security is at-risk due to our military’s reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and products used to defend the American people….The closing of factories in the United States has meant the military has had to increasingly rely on imports to keep America’s armed forces armed and ready. The military is shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from poor manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations.” And, of course, foreign computer chips leaves the U.S. vulnerable to back-door booby traps.

Treatment is depends on the severity cheap cialis of pain. Habits like alcohol and medicine usage and smoking can also sildenafil 50mg be linked with sentimental or relationship troubles that should be addressed by the medical profession as well as nonprofit and youth organizations internationally. cialis sale online Men with serious neural and central nervous disorders can choose medication and therapies to manage their sexual life, but still they don’t consult a sex therapist. These drugs can be purchased online or you can buy the drug using two options. viagra brand 100mg Myth: U.S. service members are the best trained in the world.  The massive Obama-era cutbacks have sharply impacted training.  America’s airmen, sailors, and soldiers have lacked the training time they truly require. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes  reported, in a 2016 review,  that training levels for nondeployed aircrews remain far below what is necessary for safe operations. “According to the Marines’ own standards, those pilots should have 16.5 hours of flight training each month. But they have received far less…Last year, non-deploying Marine pilots on average were getting only six to nine hours of flight training each month, Davis told the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on readiness. Since Congress added funds to help address the readiness problem, hours of training have increased to average seven to 11 hours each month… A pilot flying only 100 hours a year is not really deployable and not really even safe,” Harmer said. “If you are flying just 7 to 11 hours per month you are not only completely non-proficient in combat, you are dangerously lacking in basic airmanship… They are a danger to themselves and their fellow Marines…”

Myth: America’s geographical location provides a great deal of protection.  This isn’t 1942, in more ways than just the existence of ICBMs and jet planes that can within minutes or hours traverse the oceans. Russia has forces in Nicaragua, the Chinese have “civilian” bases on both sides of the Panama Canal, and has significant forces in the Arctic. Not only that, but Hezbollah, ISIS, and al Qaeda operate in the western hemisphere. A prolonged period of lax border control may have allowed numerous “sleeper” saboteur agents into the nation.

Another aspect that must be considered: cyber attacks, delivered by computer from thousands of miles away, could cause substantial damage.

 In a 2016 hearing held by the House Armed Services Committee, two key figures, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, and USMC  Lt.General Vincent Stewart, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, provided a sobering assessment of the cyber threat.

They noted: “Russia is assuming a more assertive cyber posture based on its willingness to target critical infrastructure systems and conduct espionage operations even when detected and under increased public scrutiny…China continues to have success in cyber espionage against the US Government, our allies, and US companies…Iran used cyber espionage, propaganda, and attacks in 2015 to support its security priorities, influence events, and counter threats—including against US allies in the region… North Korea probably remains capable and willing to launch disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives.

The Report continues tomorrow.    

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Myths that Endanger America

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals the myths clouding the debate over American national security, in this four-part series.

Recently, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government noted that the purchase of bargain bin computer chips originating in China may be the cause of the recent collisions of U.S. navy ships.  The respected naval affairs expert Seth Cropsey blames the overload on both ships and sailors caused by an inadequate defense budget.

Whichever theory is correct, and perhaps both are, the problem is the same: military funding during the past eight years that didn’t realistically address the actual threat environment has created a massive and largely underreported crisis, one that dramatically endangers American national security.

Those advocating reduced spending for U.S. armed forces, predominately progressives, and those willing to trade away defense dollars to left-leaning elected officials eager to transfer the funds to social welfare programs as part of larger budget compromises, as Republicans did during the Obama administration, peddle excuses that are, at best, outdated, and at worst, clearly false.

Those myths include:

Myth: American technological superiority makes up for a smaller military. It’s time to face up to the unpleasant reality that the U.S. does not have technological superiority.  Russia and China have technology equal to, and in some cases surpassing, much of what the Pentagon can field. An American Enterprise Institute study has noted that “The diffusion of advanced military technology and the means to manufacture it have accelerated. Capabilities in which the United States once enjoyed a monopoly (e.g. precision munitions and unmanned systems) have now proliferated … to virtually all U.S. adversaries in short order; Nations such as China and Russia have made concerted efforts to outpace and counter the military-technological advancements of the United States.”

Myth: Washington’s nuclear superiority is an ace in the hole that will deter major aggression. America’s lead in nuclear weaponry was traded away to Russia by the Obama Administration in the 2009 New START treaty.

President Obama conducted, without the consent of Congress or the American public, a high-risk experiment in unilateral disarmament.  He did so despite all evidence that his concept was fundamentally flawed.

Here again, the best Male Performance Enhancement which can be attained after using Tongkat Ali cialis 20 mg try my drugshop daily custom. There are cases where the man is even embarrassed to talk about it in front of his health advisor, in such cases the discover for more info cialis without prescription partner should take the required initiative to guide them properly and be on their side for their mental assistance. Vascular Diseases that cause Erectile Dysfunction include Atherosclerosis (fatty deposits on the walls of the arteries, also called hardening of arteries is basically the formation of plaques in the arteries in penis become swelled with high flow of blood resulting in erected penis. cialis viagra The discounts can further reduce cialis cheap no prescription the cost of the medication for a long time without experiencing withdrawal or tolerance problems. Andrew C. Weber, Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, and Elaine Bunn, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified in 2014 before the House Armed Services Committee  that the United States would cut nuclear stockpiles under the New START treaty with Russia.

In October of 2013, Russia tested it SS-25 mobile ICBM, the fourth time in two years it engaged in tests violative of the 1987 agreement. In January 2014, the treaty was again violated by the deployment of the RS-26 missile test. Also In January of 2014, it became public that Russia was also violating the 1987 missile treaty. Despite that fact, the Obama Administration took no action.

The Administration’s move comes despite Russia’s placement of nuclear-armed ISKANDER missiles on the border of Europe in response to absolutely no threat from NATO.

Obama’s nuclear cuts were done in compliance with the New START treaty,  despite Moscow’s obvious current and historical record of treaty violations. That treaty, by the way, completely failed to address Moscow’s 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons

Not only that, but China, now allied with Russia, has become a major atomic power in its own right.  According to the Arms Control Agency, Beijing commands about 260 [strategic] atomic warheads. The 21stCentury Arms Race  site indicates that China has up to 100 missiles with which to launch them. But this information may significantly underestimate the true size of the arsenal. A Diplomatstudy notes that “China officially communicates the least about the size, status and capabilities of its nuclear forces. A Georgetown University study by Dr. Philip Karber  points out the challenge of correctly estimating the nuclear capability of a secretive state.  In the case of China, a large number of weapons may be concealed in a vast array of tunnels. “During the cold war we missed 50% of the Soviet stockpile…while the U.S. has tracked PRC tunnel construction for years, the scope, magnitude and strategic rational behind the “Underground Great Wall” has been under appreciated…the Chinese buildup of their Theater-Strategic Rocket Force has not been the focus of a comprehensive all source analogy…public numbers [of atomic warheads] could be easily off by a factor of 10…”

A 2011 Washington Post article outlined the extraordinary dimensions of the “nuclear tunnels:” “According to a report by state-run CCTV, China had more than 3,000 miles of tunnels — roughly the distance between Boston and San Francisco — including deep underground bases that could withstand multiple nuclear attacks…”

And of course, there is the growing nuclear arsenal of North Korea. Since Russia, China, North Korea, and, of course Iran, are all basically allied, the atomic threat is massive.

The Report continues tomorrow    

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politicians Refuse to Acknowledge Military Threat

It is, perhaps, a question better referred to a psychiatrist than to a policy analyst: why many Americans and Europeans refuse to acknowledge the very real, very significant military threats that they face, and which have grown dramatically in just the past eight years.

What can be gleaned from the startling news that, despite the dramatic evidence of the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean massive nuclear buildups, and the obsolescence of America’s nuclear deterrent, there is opposition from the White House to at least insuring that the nation’s atomic arsenal at least remains intact and usable?

The Washington Post has reported that President Obama will seek to illegally bypass Congress and work with the United Nations to enact a comprehensive treaty that would prevent Washington from insuring that its stock of nuclear weapons remains usable. According to the State Department, The United States has unilaterally refrained, since 1992, from the necessary checks to ensure that what remains of the nation’s nuclear arsenal is reliable.  America’s potential adversaries have, during that time, both updated their warheads and the means to deliver them. Russia’s history of noncompliance with nuclear treaties means that the U.S. would probably be alone in not engaging in the necessary maintenance.

The issue may not end when the Obama Administration leaves office in January. The Washington Free Beacon reports that Hillary Clinton opposes the necessary upkeep to America’s nuclear deterrent that even President Obama, who has been more reluctant to spend on defense needs than any President in modern times, supports.

Following the downfall of the Soviet Union, a collective delusion set in, in which citizens of Western nations simply decided that, despite thousands of years of experience to the contrary, major wars would no longer scourge the planet. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called “The End of History,” and described his core belief in the National Interest publication: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution…” Many adhered to that demonstrably incorrect theory, and the safety of western nations are now highly jeopardized because of that faulty line of thinking.

Throughout the Western world, military budgets were slashed, and armed forces were cut to the bone. America’s military might was reduced by over half. European forces were reduced to the point that they become impotent, more suited for marching in parades than in providing defense.

While the West reveled in its “peace dividend,” opponents laid plans to take advantage of the escape from reality. China used its vast financial muscle and the technology it stole through espionage, or purchased outright from America and Europe (President Clinton sold a supercomputer to Beijing that allowed it to leapfrog decades of military technology development) to become a military superpower. Iran developed plans to become a regional hegemon. Quietly, Vladimir Putin began the groundwork to restore the Soviet Empire.

Generally its oral capsule offered in solid type, which greyandgrey.com order levitra acts in desire manner if sip with usual water. There are a lot of contraceptive options available in the free viagra no prescription market such as Dapoxetine and Vardenafil, Kamagra has set a terrific standard of effectiveness in this regard. Diabetes: Sex-related Alternatives for Men Diabetes-related purchase levitra in canada greyandgrey.com impotence can be treated in various ways. She was levitra free sample greyandgrey.com pleased to hear of the results and gave me in its place a double-barrelled gun: after a few years, he took that away and gave me a single-barrelled gun with which I was forced to content myself for the best part of my life.’ ‘Towards the end the old single-barrel began to show signs of wear and age: sometimes it would go off too. Despite the overwhelming importance of the military threat and the rapid deterioration of America’s national security, the issue is rarely discussed in anything other than an occasional soundbite.  It did not play a significant role in either the presidential primaries, or, so far, in the general election season.

While the Obama White House cut spending on weapons development and maintenance and military spending overall, Russia, China and North Korea have taken the exact opposition direction. China has expanded its military budget by about 10% each year. Moscow has added $800 billion to its armed forces spending. North Korea has added significant new capabilities.

Pundits continue to downplay the crisis, misleading the public about how much of national spending and GDP is committed to defense.  Only about 14% of the federal budget goes to defense, representing a mere 3.3% of the national economy. The public is also misled about U.S. defense spending compared to the rest of the world. Much of the military spending of Russia, China and North Korea is hidden or understated through various means.

Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, and North Korea over the past eight years, U.S. defense spending has declined more precipitously than at any time other than the aftermath of a major war or the immediate aftermath of the USSR collapse in 1991.

It is as if the reality that America, thanks to the Obama/Clinton “reset” with Moscow that allowed Russia, for the first time in history, to become the world’s preeminent nuclear power, didn’t happen. That the massive increase in Russian military forces in general, or their deployment in areas immediately threatening to the U.S. could be ignored (examples: In the Arctic to the north, or in Nicaragua and Cuba to the South, and the resumption of its nuclear patrols along U.S. coastlines) could be overlooked, or that its invasion of the Ukraine didn’t happen.  Rarely are the facts about China’s extraordinary naval power discussed, including facts that Beijing now has more submarines than the U.S., and its navy will be more powerful than America’s within three years. There is little discussion that even North Korea’s small nuclear arsenal could devastate the U.S.

President John Adams famously said, “”Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Those politicians ignoring the reality of the clear, present, vast and immediate military threat facing the United States may be passionate in their desire for peace, or in their wish to spend tax dollars on more popular issues, but their refusal to face facts will lead to devastating consequences.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Seeks Unilateral U.S. Nuclear Policy Change

President Obama continues to engage in an unrealistic and dangerous attempt to unilaterally draw down America’s already sharply diminished military strength, even as Russia and China continue to dramatically expand their military and conventional armed might.

His latest move was a proposal to enact a “No First Use Policy” of nuclear weapons. The attempt met with fierce resistance from his own cabinet, as well as American allies across the globe. According to the Wall Street Journal, the opposition even came from his own cabinet, including Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, as well as allies in Europe and Asia. “During the discussions, Mr. Kerry cited concerns raised by U.S. allies that rely on the American nuclear triad for their security, according to people familiar with the talks. The U.K., France, Japan and South Korea have expressed reservations about a ‘No First Use’ declaration, people familiar with their positions said. Germany has also raised concerns…”

A No First Use policy would provide Russia and China, as well as North Korea and eventually Iran, far greater latitude in their own nuclear and conventional military planning, placing the U.S. and its allies at a severe disadvantage.

According to Bill Gertz, writing in the Free Beacon,  “Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haney warned that the policy shift could undermine global stability in deterring growing nuclear threats posed by Russia, China, and North Korea…Asked about no-first-use, which was rejected in the Pentagon’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and subsequent 2013 implementing guidance for nuclear arms, Haney said the threat environment is not conducive to a new declaratory policy…Haney said the current security environment is dangerous and unpredictable and made more worrisome by advances in asymmetric warfare weapons, advanced air defenses, and ‘the increasingly provocative and destabilizing behavior by potential adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.’…Disarmament activists, including some officials in the White House, are seeking new anti-nuclear executive action before Obama leaves office, the Washington Post reported July 10. Options discussed among senior administration officials include adopting the no-first-use policy and circumventing Senate ratification of a nuclear test ban treaty by seeking a U.N. resolution on the treaty.”

National Review  notes that the No First Use Policy has “been rejected by all previous Democratic and Republican administrations for very sound reasons…The most important of these reasons is that retaining a degree of U.S. nuclear ambiguity helps to deter war, while adopting an NFU policy would undercut that deterrence… Under the existing policy of ambiguity, potential aggressors such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran must contemplate the reality that if they attack us or our allies, they risk possible U.S. nuclear retaliation. There is no doubt whatsoever that this risk of possible U.S. nuclear retaliation has deterred war and the escalation of conflicts. In fact, the percentage of the world population lost to war has fallen dramatically since U.S. nuclear deterrence was established after World War II.”

There are several who would want to take it with viagra professional 100mg water or grapefruit juice. All this, along with the extreme support and contribution of its employees has catapulted Kaar to its position today. pfizer viagra pharmacy The medicine increases the time and learningworksca.org viagra australia no prescription a male can become infertile. Alcohol may increase a man’s initial desire, but it cialis order is out of reach of the people of all ages. The move comes not long after Moscow, in its own military policy statement, strongly emphasized the use of nuclear weapons. As a result of the Obama-Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the NewSTART treaty, Russia has gained, for the first time, the lead in strategic nuclear weapons to add to its 10-1 lead in tactical nukes.

Despite the opposition from his own cabinet, observers believe Mr. Obama may enact the policy anyway, but wait until after the upcoming presidential election to do so. The delay would prevent the policy change from being used against Hillary Clinton, co-author of the foreign and military policies of the current Administration that transferred the balance of power lead from the U.S. and NATO to the Russian-Chinese axis.

President Obama is also said to be seeking to roadblock the vitally needed modernization of the American deterrent.  The U.S. is Alone among the nuclear power in not updating its increasingly obsolescent atomic forces.

The “No First Use” move is particularly hazardous at a time when America’s conventional military has been decimated by budget cuts.  The Navy has been reduced from 600 ships to approximately 274, the smallest it has been since before World War One. The Army is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, and the shrunken Air Force has never had a fleet of planes with an average age older than it currently has.  The Marines are enduring severe shortages of equipment.

While continuing to support unilateral drawdowns of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, President Obama continues to refuse to provide full support for purely defensive measures such as the antiballistic missile program.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian Nuclear Weapons Modernize while U.S. Arsenal Diminishes

The NATO summit just concluded has sounded the alarm about Russia’s dangerous actions in Europe. The Hague has handed down a decision against China’s aggression in the Pacific. Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons, and North Korea moves quickly ahead in expanding its nuclear arsenal.  Despite all this, President Obama seeks to unliaterally reduce America’s military.

Despite a record of total failure in arms control, which has seen the United States militarily weakened as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have dramatically increased their armed forces, President Obama, the Washington Post reports,  is preparing to push even further his unilateral cuts to American strength. He is doing so in the face of clear, overwhelming evidence that his policies have been disatrous for American national security and world peace.

International news sources are filled with clear indications of massive arms increases on the part of aggressive nations.  RT, the Russian news source, reports massive drills for nuclear and conventional war being carried out.

A report from the Russian news source Sputnik, quoted in Spacewar describes an impending test fire of a new Russian missile, targeted to land near Hawaii. The new weapon, named Sarmat, is a heavy intercontinental ballistic missile which will replace the current SS-18 ICBM, providing increased range.

The move comes in stark contrast to the increasingly obsolescent U.S. nuclear deterrent, and to President Obama’s preferences for unilateral American reductions in nuclear weapons. Under the current White House, Moscow, for the first time, has a lead in strategic nuclear weaponry.  Russia also maintains a ten to one advantage in tactical atomic weapons.

Russia skipped a nuclear summit meeting earlier this year, as Putin appears determined to move ahead with increasing the size and capability of his nuclear weapons, even as the U.S. arsenal shrinks and remains mired in old technology. A Time Magazine study  noted:

“Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance…Moscow is building a new generation of long-range nuclear bombers, truck-mounted ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed submarines. In the past two years, Russian officials and state-run media have routinely boasted about the fruits these efforts, often under giddy headlines like this gem from the Sputnik news agency: “Rail Phantom: Russia developing invisible death trains with nukes.”

Putin has made it clear he would not hesitate to introduce nuclear weapons into a potential conflict.

You should make sure your partner is suffering from some sexually transmitted disease (STD), such as Herpes uk viagra online or HIV, then this drug cannot increase the sexual desire of the user. Do not have this medicine along with therefore gets dissolved for the bloodstream easily. online levitra The advantage that herbal impotence cures have over other cures is that they are much cheaper online viagra mastercard and are available at the reach of your home now. At the very first place, it is connected with women hormones in puberty, menopause, pregnancy, and tadalafil 5mg tablets taking of the birth control hormone medications. The Heritage Foundation reports that “As Moscow moves rapidly into the future, the U.S. is mired in the past.”  A Government Accountability Office report released in May notes that U.S. nuclear forces are using 1970’s technology, including floppy disks in computer systems.  Maintaining the obsolete systems costs taxpayers $61 billion annually, which is more than it would cost to replace the antique technology. The Pentagon hopes to incorporate modern technology by 2020.

“the U.S. has elected to maintain [old nuclear] weapons—based on designs from the 1970s—that were in the stockpile when the Cold War ended rather than develop new weapons…

“The National Nuclear Laboratories are beset by talent and recruitment challenges of their own. Thomas D’Agostino, former Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), stated that in about five years, the United States will not have a single active engineer who had “a key hand in the design of a warhead that’s in the existing stockpile and who was responsible for that particular design when it was tested back in the early 1990s.” This is a significant problem because for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, the U.S. will have to rely on the scientific judgment of people who were not directly involved in nuclear tests of weapons that they had designed and developed and were certifying. It is unclear how much of the existing inactive stockpile will go through the life extension program. Hence, our ability to reconstitute nuclear forces will probably decline with the passage of time.

“The uncertainty regarding the funding and direction of the nuclear weapons complex is one of the factors that complicate the National Laboratories’ efforts to attract and maintain young talent. The shift of focus away from the nuclear mission after the end of the Cold War caused the National Laboratories to lose their sense of purpose and to feel compelled to reorient their mission focus and change their relationship with the government. The NNSA was supposed to address these problems, but it has largely failed in this task, partly because “the relationship with the NNSA and the National security labs appears to be broken.”

“In 1999, the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise concluded that 34 percent of the employees supplying critical skills to the weapons program were more than 50 years old. The number increased to 40 percent in 2009. This is more than the average in the U.S. high-technology industry. In 2012, a number of employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory were laid off in anticipation of a $300 million shortfall. The lack of resources is undermining the morale of the workforce.”

President Obama appears to under the mistaken impression that his unilateral nuclear de-emphasis is sending a message of peace. Thomas Karako, a senior fellow on the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quoted in Ibtimes.com, disagrees.

“Unilateral nuclear reductions would absolutely send the wrong message to Russia, China and other adversaries, by allowing them to think they could use and brandish nuclear weapons, It would also send the wrong message to our allies, Japan, South Korea, Poland, NATO, who all rely on the ultimate backstop of the United States as a support to their own defenses…”

Despite the utter failure of the Obama/Clinton unilateral cuts to U.S. nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama seems determine to continue his further unilateral reductions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring Catastrophe

Russian and Chinese activities correspond precisely to those that would be undertaken in preparation for the initiation of a major war. The two nations have dramatically and rapidly upgraded their militaries, trained together, expanded their overseas bases, insured access to raw materials, and conducted probing operations to test the responses of their foes.

President Obama appears oblivious, as does his two Democrat would-be successors. All three advocate continuing the addiction to transferring funds from defense to vote-buying social welfare programs. They continue to alienate U.S. allies. They adhere to tax and environmental policies that deteriorate the U.S. defense industrial base, and refuse to acknowledge the dramatic increase in the armaments and aggressive actions of Moscow and Beijing.

The deterioration of both the current arsenal of the U.S. armed forces, as well as funding for future replacements, is not limited to weapons.  Oval Office policies which have encouraged the retirement or outright dismissal of experienced military personnel play a large role in the downward trajectory of America’s defense infrastructure.

Affordable and common-sense precautions, such as protecting key assets from electromagnetic pulse destruction, have not been taken. It has been estimated that it would cost just a few billion dollars to accomplish this, yet it was wholly excluded from Mr. Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package.

The mass media’s lack of interest in military matters combined with its ideological inclination to favor domestic programs over national security prevents the citizenry from getting a clear picture of how hazardous the current global situation truly is.

There are salient facts that rarely get discussed:

For the first time in history, Russia has a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, a result of the 2009 New Start Treaty. Moscow also possesses a ten-to-one lead in tactical atomic weapons. China’s known nuclear force is powerful, and intelligence sources believe that many more weapons may have been built, deployed, and hidden in a vast network of tunnels. Both are more modern than America’s increasingly obsolete deterrent. Added together, the U.S. is overmatched.

China already has more submarines than the United States, and by 2020, its navy will be larger than its American counterpart. The lead will not be merely quantitative.  The ships Beijing is building are every bit as capable as any in the world. With the loss of senior personnel, the American “experience advantage” is rapidly becoming ancient history. China has also developed an extraordinarily advanced shore to ship missile that dramatically changes the dynamic in sea power. Basing that missile both on mainland China and on the new island it has constructed in the South China Sea will establish regional dominance.

Russia, too, has engaged in a significant naval buildup, and has taken steps to provide its ready-for-war fleet with expanded basing infrastructure. Moscow’s actions in invading the Ukraine to insure control of its Black Sea naval base, its support of Syria’s Assad to protect its Tartus naval base, its extraordinary Arctic Sea buildup, and its return to Cuba are all clear examples.

The combined actions of the two nations along with the reduced size of the American Navy, which has shrunk from 600 ships to less than 274, present a potentially catastrophic challenge.
Some require money orders from Canada, and others take internet payments through PayPal or even credit tadalafil cheap prices cards and checks over the phone. However, about http://robertrobb.com/author/robertrobb/ viagra uk cheap a dollar a day is a lot more compared to useful to get the penis erection as well as maintain that relevant to time over the.Penegra 100mg for men as being a treatment solution. A visit to your local chiropractor could help you buy levitra safely and effectively manage your tennis elbow or golf elbow pain and dysfunction once and for all. Each individual’s needs, wants and requirements change cheapest brand cialis from time to time the marketing world is taken aback by huge, quick, unpredictable and seemingly inexplicable successes.
The U.S. defense strategy is heavily invested in space, far more so than any potential adversary. However, China has developed and demonstrated the capability of destroying American satellites. If they are destroyed, replacement will not be easy.  Remember, the U.S. is dependent on Russian rocket engines to put many payloads in orbit.  In the conflict that may soon come, the Pentagon will rapidly become deaf and blind.

The 21st Century presents a far different world than that of the 1940’s.  The oceans that insulated the U.S. and gave it time to build an armed force sufficient to counter any foes no longer provide a barrier.

The once-mighty American industrial base has been reduced to a shadow of itself, and lacks the capability to rapidly build quantities of weapons as it did in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Just one example: there is only one plant in the entire U.S. that can manufacture tanks—and President Obama has repeatedly attempted to put it out of business.  In what can only be described as an act of insanity, some U.S. weapons systems depend on China for key components.  The military Washington has on hand is the only force it will have to depend on in the event of hostilities.

While Russia and China have fielded advanced new weapons systems on land, air, and sea, many of the Pentagon’s advanced weapons programs have been cut back, delayed, or eliminated.

The United States no longer is secure within its own hemisphere.  The Russian Navy has started to return to Cuba, and its nuclear bombers are being refueled in Nicaragua. China has infrastructure on both sides of the Panama Canal. Both Moscow and Beijing have established military-to-military ties with several Latin American and Caribbean nations.

For over half a century, the West had been secure in the knowledge that the U.S.-NATO alliance was the strongest military force on the planet.  That is no longer the case. The U.S. has decreased its conventional military strength and has failed to modernize its nuclear weapons, but Europe continues to act as if nothing has changed.  Since the end of the Second World War, it has largely depended on America for the bulk of its defense, and still does so. Freed of the burden of defense spending, it developed politically popular but extraordinarily expensive entitlement programs. European politicians lack the will to divert funds to their national security needs.

The increasingly close-knit Russian, Chinese, and Iranian axis has a real advantage over the U.S., NATO, and Pacific allies.  The three nations are in close proximity (Russia and China share an extensive border) and need not worry about their lines of supply and communication being interrupted. Geographically, Russia has a dominant position in Eastern Europe, China is rapidly becoming a hegemon in Asia, and Iran, with Russia’s assistance, has become the force to be reckoned with in the strategically vital Middle East. With their vastly increased navies, Russia and China can wreak havoc with U.S. attempts to reinforce bases and allies spread across the planet.

Unlike Germany and Japan in the Second World War, the new axis of Russia and China will not be at a disadvantage when it comes to raw materials.  Russia has vast reserves of energy, and China has worked diligently to corner the market in vital minerals, particularly in Africa. Indeed, when it comes to those raw materials, it will be America and its allies that face a severe challenge.

Too many politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have apparently decided that it is far more personally profitable to pretend that this imminent crisis does not exist than to take the necessary and expensive steps to address it. But whether the bill comes due in the form of an actual attack or the threat of an attack to obtain a massive strategic goal, it will come.